ArticlePloS one2025
Models for predicting the risk of bloodstream infections associated with peripherally inserted central venous catheters: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Immune-inflammatory prediction of PICC-related bloodstream infection in oldest-old adults with exploratory berberine biofilm-inflammation experiments.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) associated bloodstream infections is a type of central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI), the purpose of this scoping review was to analyse and summarize the risk prediction models for PICC-CLABSI to provide insights for clinical nursing practice.
methodsA scoping review was conducted from six bibliographic databases including CNKI, Wanfang Database, VIP Chinese Journal Database, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, from inception to November 5, 2024. Screening was performed and relevant data was extracted independently by two researchers, the risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST).
resultsEight studies met the inclusion criteria, which included two score models, six nomograms, and one ELM model. The included studies exhibited a high risk of bias, mainly due to methodological heterogeneity. Four models underwent external validation, two were assessed for goodness of fit. The most frequently identified predictors including catheter indwelling time, maintenance cycle/frequency, multilumen catheters, PICC parenteral nutrition, diabetes, and malignant tumors.
conclusionThe risk prediction models for PICC-CLABSI demonstrated strong predictive performance. Future research should carefully address all elements of PROBAST framework during study design phase. This will facilitate both internal and external validation, as well as differentiation, calibration, and evaluation of clinical practicality. The ultimate objective is to develop a PICC-CLABSI risk prediction model that exhibits low bias risk, robust predictive performance, and high clinical applicability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.